Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.63 seconds)Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta VI (1999) SLT
163 = (1999) 6 SCC 222 wherein, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that :
"12. A perusal of Section 14 of the Act shows that the law has
imposed restrictions on the recovery of possession, of any premises
by landlord from a tenant notwithstanding any law or contract to
the contrary. However, an order for recovery of possession is
permissible on one or more of the specified ground. One such
ground is the premises let for residential purposes being required
bonafide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or
for any member of his family dependent on him. What is a bonafide
requirement is not defined in the Act. The words 'need' and
'require' both denote a certain degree of want with a thrust within
demanding fulfilment. 'Need' or 'requirement' qualified by word
'bonafide' or 'genuine' preceding as an adjectiveis an expression
often used in Rent Control Laws. 'Bonafide or genuine need' of the
landlord or that the landlord 'genuinely requires' or "requires
bonafide" an accommodation for occupation by or use for himself
is an accepted ground for eviction and such expression is often
employed by Rent Control legislation draftsman. The two
expressions are interchangeable in practice and carry the same
meaning."
Manoj Kumar vs Bihari Lal (Dead) By Lrs on 18 April, 2001
In view of filing of suit for
specific performance, no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the
parties and on this Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon AIR 2001
S.C. 2176 titled as "Manoj Kumar Vs. Bihari Lal (dead) by LR's. Here it will
be useful to reproduce paras no.5, 6 & 12 of this judgment which are as
follows:
"5. The case of the respondent as appears from the averments in
the eviction petition is that he is the landlord of the premises in question and
the appellant is his tenant. An agreement was entered between the parties on
01.11.1985 for sale of the property by the respondent to the appellant for
consideration of Rs. 49,000/ out of which a sum of Rs. 45,000/ was paid by
the latter to the former as part payment of consideration and the appellant
was put in possession of the property. Subsequently, it transpired that due to
some difficulty the sale deed could not be executed. The sum received
towards consideration was returned by the respondent to the appellant.
Thereafter the applicant continued to occupy the premises as a tenant w.e.f.
01.11.1993. It was the further case of the respondent that he required the
premises for occupation by himself and members of his family and, therefore,
an order for eviction of the tenant may be passed.
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Sh. Labhu Lal vs Smt. Sandhya Gupta on 28 September, 2010
In "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta", 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 231
(Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that children are very
much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and
such a requirement is a bonafide one. If the respondent wished to settle her
sons and grandsons, and she required accommodation for the same, it could not
be said to be malafide on her part.
Smt. Viran Wali vs Sh. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar on 12 November, 2010
18. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon "Sanjay Mehra &
Ors. Vs. Sunil Malhotra & Anr.", 170 (2010) Delhi Law Times 797 Delhi
High Court, "Tagore Education Society Regd. Vs. Kamla Tandon & Anr.",
161 (2009) Delhi Law Times 232 Delhi High Court, "Radha Devi Vs. Deep
Naryan Mandal & Ors.", (2003) 11 SCC 759, "Navneet Lal Vs. Deepak
Sawhney", 2010 (2) RCR Delhi High Court, page no. 582, "Satnam Anand &
Anr. Vs. Gurbachan Singh", Ex F.A. 7/2011 decided on 17.02.2011 by
E11/2012 Page 11/30
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, "Smt. Munni Devi Vs. Manmohan Verma,
(2007) 1 RCR Delhi High Court, "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi", 157
(2009) Delhi Law Times 450 Delhi High Court, "Rajender Kumar Sharma &
Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors.", 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 Delhi High
Court, "S.S. Gokul Krishnan & Ors. Vs. State The Food Inspector, Govt. of
N.C.T. of Delhi", 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 456 Delhi High Court, "Shiv
Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta", SC 80 (1999) Delhi Law Times
731 (SC), "Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. Vs. Parbha Khanna & Anr., 153
(2008) Delhi Law Times 652 Delhi High Court, "Shri Natha Singh Vs. Shri
H.V. Nayar", All India Rent Control Journal 1983 (1), page no. 158, "Mohd.
Usman Vs. Siraj Ahmed", 154 (2008) Delhi Law Times 342 Delhi High
Court, "Viran Wali Vs. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar", 174 (2010) Delhi Law Times
328 Delhi High Court, "Bhagwat Prasad Sharma Vs. Pinky Aggarwal &
Anr.", 2009 (107) DRJ 517 Delhi High Court, "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya
Gupta", 173 (2010) Delhi Law Times 318 Delhi High Court, "Surinder Singh
Vs. Jasbir Singh", 172 (2010) Delhi Law Times 611 Delhi High Court,
"Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Krishna Luthra", 172 (2010) Delhi Law
Times 551 Delhi High Court, "Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Haryana", SC, 2011 STPL (WEB) 879 SC and "Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat
Singh & Ors." CM (M) No. 1215/2007 decided by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi on 26.01.2010.
Sh. Surinder Singh vs Sh. Jasbir Singh on 23 September, 2010
18. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon "Sanjay Mehra &
Ors. Vs. Sunil Malhotra & Anr.", 170 (2010) Delhi Law Times 797 Delhi
High Court, "Tagore Education Society Regd. Vs. Kamla Tandon & Anr.",
161 (2009) Delhi Law Times 232 Delhi High Court, "Radha Devi Vs. Deep
Naryan Mandal & Ors.", (2003) 11 SCC 759, "Navneet Lal Vs. Deepak
Sawhney", 2010 (2) RCR Delhi High Court, page no. 582, "Satnam Anand &
Anr. Vs. Gurbachan Singh", Ex F.A. 7/2011 decided on 17.02.2011 by
E11/2012 Page 11/30
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, "Smt. Munni Devi Vs. Manmohan Verma,
(2007) 1 RCR Delhi High Court, "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi", 157
(2009) Delhi Law Times 450 Delhi High Court, "Rajender Kumar Sharma &
Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors.", 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 Delhi High
Court, "S.S. Gokul Krishnan & Ors. Vs. State The Food Inspector, Govt. of
N.C.T. of Delhi", 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 456 Delhi High Court, "Shiv
Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta", SC 80 (1999) Delhi Law Times
731 (SC), "Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. Vs. Parbha Khanna & Anr., 153
(2008) Delhi Law Times 652 Delhi High Court, "Shri Natha Singh Vs. Shri
H.V. Nayar", All India Rent Control Journal 1983 (1), page no. 158, "Mohd.
Usman Vs. Siraj Ahmed", 154 (2008) Delhi Law Times 342 Delhi High
Court, "Viran Wali Vs. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar", 174 (2010) Delhi Law Times
328 Delhi High Court, "Bhagwat Prasad Sharma Vs. Pinky Aggarwal &
Anr.", 2009 (107) DRJ 517 Delhi High Court, "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya
Gupta", 173 (2010) Delhi Law Times 318 Delhi High Court, "Surinder Singh
Vs. Jasbir Singh", 172 (2010) Delhi Law Times 611 Delhi High Court,
"Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Krishna Luthra", 172 (2010) Delhi Law
Times 551 Delhi High Court, "Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Haryana", SC, 2011 STPL (WEB) 879 SC and "Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat
Singh & Ors." CM (M) No. 1215/2007 decided by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi on 26.01.2010.
M/S. Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons vs Smt. Krishna Luthra on 15 September, 2010
18. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon "Sanjay Mehra &
Ors. Vs. Sunil Malhotra & Anr.", 170 (2010) Delhi Law Times 797 Delhi
High Court, "Tagore Education Society Regd. Vs. Kamla Tandon & Anr.",
161 (2009) Delhi Law Times 232 Delhi High Court, "Radha Devi Vs. Deep
Naryan Mandal & Ors.", (2003) 11 SCC 759, "Navneet Lal Vs. Deepak
Sawhney", 2010 (2) RCR Delhi High Court, page no. 582, "Satnam Anand &
Anr. Vs. Gurbachan Singh", Ex F.A. 7/2011 decided on 17.02.2011 by
E11/2012 Page 11/30
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, "Smt. Munni Devi Vs. Manmohan Verma,
(2007) 1 RCR Delhi High Court, "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi", 157
(2009) Delhi Law Times 450 Delhi High Court, "Rajender Kumar Sharma &
Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors.", 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 Delhi High
Court, "S.S. Gokul Krishnan & Ors. Vs. State The Food Inspector, Govt. of
N.C.T. of Delhi", 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 456 Delhi High Court, "Shiv
Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta", SC 80 (1999) Delhi Law Times
731 (SC), "Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. Vs. Parbha Khanna & Anr., 153
(2008) Delhi Law Times 652 Delhi High Court, "Shri Natha Singh Vs. Shri
H.V. Nayar", All India Rent Control Journal 1983 (1), page no. 158, "Mohd.
Usman Vs. Siraj Ahmed", 154 (2008) Delhi Law Times 342 Delhi High
Court, "Viran Wali Vs. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar", 174 (2010) Delhi Law Times
328 Delhi High Court, "Bhagwat Prasad Sharma Vs. Pinky Aggarwal &
Anr.", 2009 (107) DRJ 517 Delhi High Court, "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya
Gupta", 173 (2010) Delhi Law Times 318 Delhi High Court, "Surinder Singh
Vs. Jasbir Singh", 172 (2010) Delhi Law Times 611 Delhi High Court,
"Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Krishna Luthra", 172 (2010) Delhi Law
Times 551 Delhi High Court, "Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Haryana", SC, 2011 STPL (WEB) 879 SC and "Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat
Singh & Ors." CM (M) No. 1215/2007 decided by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi on 26.01.2010.
Precision Steel And Engineering Works ... vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal on 7 October, 1982
In Precision Metal & Engg. Works Vs. Prema Deva, Niranjan
Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, it has been held that "while deciding the
application for leave to contest, the controller has to confine himself to the
affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub Section (4) and the reply if any. On
perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by the
landlord, the controller has to pose to himself the only question, "Does the
affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from
obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in
clause of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?". The controller is not to record a
finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits
against the other set of affidavits."